REGISTRY OPERATOR’S PROPOSAL
TOP LEVEL DOMAIN POLICIES
DESCRIPTION OF TLD POLICIES
Commercial Connect, LLC
September 30, 2000
1418 South Third Street
Louisville, KY
40208-2117
(502) 635-7979 – (502) 636-9157
Jeffrey S. Smith, President
THIS BUSINESS PLAN IS CONFIDENTIAL AND THE PROPRIETARY
INFORMATION OF COMMERCIAL CONNECT, LLC., AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED OR RELEASED
TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED WRITTEN CONSENT OF COMMERCIAL CONNECT, LLC..
COMMERCIAL CONNECT, LLC
TOP LEVEL DOMAIN POLICIES
DESCRIPTION OF TLD POLICIES
I. GENERAL TLD
POLICIES.
E1. In General. Please provide a full and detailed description of all policies to be followed in the TLD (other than those covered in response to items E11-E21). If the TLD's policy on a particular topic is proposed to be identical to that reflected by a particular version of any of the following documents, it is sufficient for your response to identify the topic, to give a brief summary of the policy, and for the details to reference the document and section:
· ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement
· NSI Registrar License and Agreement
· ICANN-NSI Registry Agreement
· Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy
Your response should comprehensively describe policies on all topics to be followed in connection with the proposed TLD. The following items (E2-E10) are examples only and should not limit your description
E1. COMMERCIAL CONNECT, LLC., hereafter referred
to as CCL, will adopt and follow identically the policies, rules and
requirements set forth in the current version of the 1) ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement, the recitation of
requirement of each registrar to have an agreement with NSI and to be in
compliance with this ICANN Agreement as well. Operating instructions and other
rules of conduct are contained in this Agreement. See Exhibit E1, filed herewith; and 2) the NSI Registrar License
and Agreement, is the document that confirms each registrar’s license and
agreement to register domain names, and sets out the rules for competitive
registrars to operate. See Exhibit E2, filed herewith; and 3) the ICANN-NSI
Registry Agreement, which contains the essential elements of the Agreement
between ICANN and Network Solutions, Inc., which nominates NSI to be the TLD
for the extensions, .com, .net, and .org., which among other items, grants all
ICANN registrars access to the registry. See Exhibit E3, filed herewith; and 4)
the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. This is the document setting
forth the mandatory nature of this Policy, that this is to be the exclusive
platform for remedy of any domain name disputes, and outlines the procedures to
follow in any such case. See Exhibit E4, filed herewith.
E2. TLD String. Please identify the TLD string(s) you are proposing. For format requirements for TLD strings, see the answer to FAQ #5.
E2. TLD String. CCL proposes to
continue reliance on the ASCII basic version format. See ISO 646. We accept
the current limitation of 63 characters, digits, hyphens and periods as are now
in use. CCL proposes to add extensions,
.shop; .svc; and .mall.
CCL envisions “dot
shop” being reserved for fixed location establishments that sell goods or
products to customers; “dot svc” would be reserved for businesses that are
either fixed or mobile, that render services such as plumbers, home appliances
repairmen, and professional service providers such as CPA or attorneys; and “dot
mall” would be reserved for those owners or operators of shopping malls, that
is, a collection of stores or shops offering goods to customers at a central
location.
E3. Naming conventions. Describe the naming conventions and structure within the TLD. E.g., will registrants have names registered at the second level (directly under the TLD, as in registered-name.com), or will the TLD be organized with sub-domains so that registered domain names are created at a lower level (as in registered-name.travel.com)?
E3. Naming Conventions. Names will be created at
the second level directly under the TLD, as in registered-name.shop or my.shop.
E4. Registrars.
Describe in detail the policies for selection of, and competition among,
registrars. Will domain-name holders deal through registrars, directly with the
registry operator, or some combination of the two? What are the respective
roles, functions, and responsibilities for the registry operator and
registrars? If registrars are to be employed, how and by whom will they be
selected or accredited? If the number of registrars will be restricted, what
number of registrars will be selected? Have the qualifying registrars already
been selected? On what basis will selections among those seeking to be
registrars be made, and who will make them? If registrars are to be used, what
mechanisms will be used to ensure that TLD policies are implemented?
E4. Registrars.
E4.1 CCL envisages using existing ICANN
accredited registrars to service the public’s utilization of this domain-name
extension. CCL proposes to start
operation with a sixty (60) day sunrise period. During this period, CCL
will accept only accredited copyright or trademark owners for
registration. After this initial
period, CCL will delay further activity for an additional thirty (30) days, to
allow for changes or improvements in CCL’s software or systems. CCL proposes to offer approval to all
existing ICANN registrars, upon making application, which shall be charged at
$2,000.00 non-refundable fee to defray costs of review, evaluation, credit
checks, and inclusion in out software. It is CCL’s intention to approve all
ICANN registrars who apply and which continue to meet ICANN standards. CCL proposes to charge an annual fee of
$1,000.00 to each approved registrar to help defray costs of upgrading
equipment, software and systems.
E4.2. CCL
expects all new domain-name holders to deal exclusively through the registrar.
At this time it is not expected that any issues will arise that requires the
intervention of CCL. Should that occur,
however, then generally accepted business practices and applicable ICANN
policies will guide CCL’s involvement.
E4.3 CCL would, as
registry operator, occupy an oversight
capacity in relation to the registrars.
The subordinate registrar will be an approved agent through whom the
domain-name holder obtains the desired domain-name. Each registrar must assure
the reliable and accurate obtaining of the customer’s information and relaying
it to CCL.
E4.4. All
currently accredited ICANN registrars as well as any newly appointed ICANN
registrars in the future, will be eligible for approval to obtain domain-names
with the dot shop extension. Each registrar must make application to CCL, and
pay the stated fees, but when those steps have been completed, a registrar in
good standing with ICANN can rest assured it will be added to the list of
approved registrars for selling and promoting this new domain-name
extension.
E4.5. CCL
does not seek to restrict the accreditation of registrars by ICANN and will
extend to all registrars so accredited the same equal access to its
facilities. This means there will be no
preferences given to any registrars, even those that have ownership in common
with the registry. It is not only
important to avoid favoritism, but it is equally important to avoid even the
appearance of favoritism
E4.6. CCL
has received expressions of interest from a few registrars concerning this
application for a new domain-name extension.
Comments have been quite favorable over CCL’s choice of “dot shop” as
its TLD. We are encouraged there is a
large and anxious market out there waiting for this extension.
E4.7. CCL,
by accepting all ICANN accredited registrars as potential registrars of the
domain-name, agrees to accord equal treatment to every one. In any case where it is necessary to select
between two or more competing registrars, objective criteria, if it can be
found to base any choice upon, so that even those who are not chosen can agree
the process was fairly devised and fairly implemented.
E4.8. CCL
may decline to renew a registrar’s annual license should that registrar fail to
conform to stated protocols, and after CCL contact with the registrar, the
registrar still refuses to comply with the rules or protocol. However, even in
such drastic cases, should the registrar later come into compliance, then its
license would be renewed on the same terms as the other licensees, provided
they continue in good standing with ICANN.
E5. Intellectual Property
Provisions. Describe the policies for protection of intellectual property.
Your response should address at least the following questions, as appropriate
to the TLD:
E5.
Intellectual Property Provisions.
E5.1. What measures will be taken to discourage registration of domain names that infringe intellectual property rights?
E5.1. CCL
will recognize and honor all intellectual property rights. To accomplish this is not an easy task
because there is no central “whois” for established copyrighted or trade marked
names. It has always been the responsibility of the copyright holder or
trademark holder to enforce those rights.
This makes the start up “sunrise period” all the more important to get
this registry off to a good and sound start. How we conduct ourselves will be
closely scrutinized by the press and the public. We must in every case be both
fair and dependable. In a disputed case where a domain-name has been registered
but a later complaint is lodged claiming to be the “rightful” owner of that
domain-name, CCL will invoke the dispute resolution policy of ICANN. CCL proposes payment of a $500.00 challenge
fee by the challenger and a like amount from the initial domain-name holder.
CCL, as the registry operator, would then employ objective, commercially accepted
business practices and principles to
make the determination which claimant was entitled to the domain-name. The winning party would receive back his
challenge fee and the registry would retain the losing party’s fee.
E5.2. If you are proposing pre-screening for potentially infringing registrations, how will the pre-screening be performed?
E5.2. CCL
does not propose a formal pre-screening process. Considering the new extension
is available worldwide and there is no single place to look to verify the
authenticity of the registrant’s claim to the particular domain-name, it would
be impractical from the cost standpoint to implement pre-screening. By its nature, this is a problem that must
be self-policing. It has always been
the legal obligation of the copyright holder or trademark holder to actively
defend his rights. It must essentially remain that way.
E5.3. What registration practices will be employed to minimize abusive registrations?
E5.3. CCL
believes that self-policing is the only practical way to resolve the issue of
intellectual property rights. As pointed out above, CCL as registry operator
must of necessity rely on the challenge method to resolve contested
claims. It is CCL’s intention to post on
its website and to incorporate into its agreement with each registrar which
undertakes to promote the “dot shop” extension the challenge process which will
be employed in cases of dispute, and that the looser will not receive a refund
for any fees already paid.
E5.4. What measures do you propose to comply with applicable trademark and anti-cybersquatting legislation?
E5.4. CCL
will adhere to the policy mentioned in the sunrise period discussion paper that
initial domain-names will go to those registrants who certify they have done
business under that copyright or trademark before October 2, 2000. After the sunrise period passes, CCL will
require a certification that the registrant is planning to go into business in
the very future or already is in business under that name.
E5.5. Are you proposing any special protections (other than during the start-up period) for famous trademarks?
E5.5. No
E5.6. How will complete, up-to-date, reliable, and conveniently provided Whois data be maintained, updated, and accessed concerning registrations in the TLD?
E5.6. CCL proposes to employ the thick-registry model; CCL will also
maintain a centralized Whois. This eliminates the need for data escrow and
allows for reliable almost instantaneous Whois data.
E6. Dispute Resolution. Describe
the policies for domain name and other dispute resolution. If you are proposing
variations to the policies followed in .com, .net, and .org, consider the
following questions
E6. Dispute Resolution.
E6.1. To what extent are you proposing to implement the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy?
E6.1. We
propose to adopt and implement the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy now in effect completely and without reservation. Every new registrant will be required to
certify they know about, have read, and
accept the provisions of the UDNDRP as
a condition precedent to the issuance of the domain-name. A copy of the current version of the UDNDRP
is filed herewith as an exhibit and marked “Exhibit E4.”
E6.2. Please describe any additional, alternative, or supplemental dispute resolution procedures you are proposing.
E6.2.
None. We have three years
experience as a Registrar. During this
period we have not had one occasion to either invoke that policy or to be
involved with others in a dispute. CCL
believes the very existence of the policy precludes many disputes. We support the continuation of that policy
and we will abide by its provisions.
E7. Data Privacy, Escrow, and Whois. Describe the proposed policies on data privacy, escrow and Whois service.
E7. Data
Privacy, Escrow and Whois. Describe the proposed policies on data, privacy,
escrow and Whois service.
E7.1. Data
privacy will be based on requirements from various countries. CCL has both inellectual property rights
attorneys and international law experts reviewing the various countries
policies in these areas. CCL’s final
policies will be guided by the reports from these experts.
E7.2. For
comments regarding Escrow agreements, see our discussion in E5.6, above.
Basically, CCL does not foresee any need for an escrow agent. CCL will be glad to forward all electronic
data to ICANN on the schedule agreed to.
E7.3. Whois
service. See our discussion of this at
E5.6, above.
E8. Billing and Collection. Describe variations in or additions to the policies for billing and collection.
E8.
Billing and Collection.
Billings to our
registrars will be by the current method, deduction against a deposit
maintained by the registrar in a non-interest bearing account in favor of the
Registry. . Of course, all payments
from all sources to CCL will be in United States Dollars. Please see Business and Technical Plan for
more detail billing operations descriptions.
E9. Services and Pricing. What registration services do you propose to establish charges for and, for each such service, how much do you propose to charge?
E9.
Services and Pricing.
CCL proposes to charge its approved registrars
for the creation, storage, maintenance and access of the individual domain-name file as requested by each
domain-name holder as follows: Twelve
($12.00) Dollars per each initial registration for two years, and Six
($6.00) Dollars for each additional year at the customer’s option up to a total
of ten (10) years. The requirement that
the domain-name holder initially buy a two-year registration will serve to
reduce the number of speculators who buy but do not intend to use the
domain-names. This two year original
registration will be an assist to CCL to recoup capitalization and to have
funds available for improving equipment and service.
A service charge of
Six ($6.00) Dollars will be assessed
for any transfer of ownership of a domain-name
This will extend the subscription period one year, but not to exceed the
10 year limit. .
E10. Other. Please
describe any policies concerning topics not covered by the above questions
E10. Other
Topics Not Covered Above. None.
II. REGISTRATION
POLICIES DURTNG THE START-UP PERIOD.
E11. In this section, you should thoroughly describe all policies (including implementation details) that you propose to follow during the start-up phase of registrations in the TLD, to the extent they differ from the General TLD Policies covered in items E1-E9. The following questions highlight some of the areas that should be considered for start-up policies:
E11.
Describe all policies including implementation details that this TLD
proposes to follow during the start-up phase of registration in the TLD to the
extent they differ from the General TLD Policies covered in Items E1-E9.
Reference is made to our proposed sunrise period in Item E4.1, above.
E12. How do you propose to address the potential rush for registration at the initial opening of the TLD? How many requested registrations do you project will be received by the registry operator within the first day, week, month, and quarter? What period do you believe should be considered the TLD's "start-up period," during which special procedures should apply?
E12.1.
Potential Initial Rush of Registrations. CCL urges the adoption of the “sunrise period” as explained in
the letter of the same title, to cushion the initial rush of registrants to an
acceptable level. By limiting the first registrants to copyright and trademark
holders of record on October 2, 2000, or before, only bona fide holders would
be expected to apply. This 90 days delay from adoption of the domain-name
extension would give time for CCL to receive, review, verify and issue
approvals to the existing ICANN accredited registrars who wish to take on this
new extension. CCL believes that all
the accredited registrars will want to promote this new extension.
E12.2. CCL projects
the following numbers of requested registrations in the time period indicated:
First Day 25,000
First Week 125,000
First Month 200,000
First Quarter 425.000
E12.3. CCL
believes the first two months, that is, the first sixty (60) days of operation
after award of the domain-name extension or extensions, should be considered
the “start-up period.” CCL anticipates
approving one-half the applications from registrars and would project to
complete that process within another 30 days.
At that time the full number of registrars who desire to be able to
offer this new domain-name extension will be approved by CCL and up and
running. CCL in the meantime will have
to record the full number of registrants.
E13. Do you propose to place limits on the number of registrations per registrant? Per registrar? If so, how will these limits be implemented?
E13. CCL
does not foresee placing limits on either private citizens or businessmen who
wish to register multiple names. This question is primarily a question each
individual registrar may want to address.
CCL believes our service is most beneficial when it is most available to
all who seek it and who will use it.
E14. Will pricing mechanisms be used to dampen a rush for registration at the initial opening of the TLD? If so, please describe these mechanisms in detail.
E14. Yes.
CCL has imposed a modest limiting factor on the speculative registration of
domain names by proposing the first registration of a domain name be for a
period of two years, which effectively raises the price and should discourage
speculation in large numbers of domain names. Further, the use of a “sunrise”
period will further diminish the speculator’s opportunity.
E15. Will you offer any "sunrise period" in which certain potential registrants are offered the opportunity to register before registration is open to the general public? If so, to whom will this opportunity be offered (those with famous marks, registered trademarks, second-level domains in other TLDs, pre-registrations of some sort, etc.)? How will you implement this?
E15. CCL
advocates a “sunrise” period for selected potential registrants. The start up period will coincide with the
sunrise period previously proposed elsewhere in this Application.
III. REGISTRATION
RESTRICTIONS. (Required for restricted TLDs only.)
E16. As noted in the New TLD Application Process Overview, a restricted TLD is one with enforced restrictions on (1) who may apply for a registration within the domain, (2) what uses may be made of those registrations, or (3) both. In this section, please describe in detail the restrictions you propose to apply to the TLD. Your description should should define the criteria to be employed, the manner in which you propose they be enforced, and the consequences of violation of the restrictions. Examples of matters that should be addressed are:
E16. Even
though CCL is an unsponsored applicant, CCL feels there should be some restrictions
on the proposed TLDs in order to maintain a clear usage structure.
E16.1. In
order to regulate the new TLDs, the following must be agreed to: the extension
.shop must be used by a fixed site commercial enterprise engaged in the sale of
goods; the extension .svc must be reserved for users who deliver services only,
of all kinds, plumbing, consulting, or others, either fixed or mobile; and
.mall must be reserved for those enterprises which are collections of shops,
stores, or other outlets at which commerce is done, usually in large groups of
diversified merchants.
E17. Describe in detail the criteria for registration in the TLD. Provide a full explanation of the reasoning behind the specific policies chosen.
E17. The
applying registrant will be required to make a 2 step certification to the
approved registrar as part of his application for domain-name, and to establish
his right to the domain-name he seeks , one or more of the following to: 1) That he was in business on or before October 2, 2000, under
the requested domain-name, or 2) That
he has engaged in business after October 2, 2000, under the requested
domain-name, and is still so engaged, or 3) That he is substantially ready to
begin business and needs this email address for final preparations, such as
ordering signs or stationary, committing to advertising, and the completion of
necessary forms for permits to begin business. The second step will be the
voluntary agreement of the applicant to restrict his use of the domain-name extension
to those categories described in Item E16.1, above.
E18. Describe the application process for potential registrants in the TLD.
E18. Any
potential registrant will contact an approved registrar, the list of which will
be maintained on the CCL website, and will be required to furnish the same
information that is presently required to obtaining a domain-name in the
extensions, .com, .net, and .org. In
addition, the potential registrant will be required to subscribe to the usage
certification described above, and finally, to consent to the ICANN Uniform
Dispute Resolution Policy as then in effect.
Upon payment by the potential registrant, the registrar will forward
electronically this information to CCL for final disposition.
E19. Describe the enforcement procedures and mechanisms for ensuring registrants meet the registration requirements.
E19. The
usage of the domain-name as obtained by the registrant will be subject to
challenge by any member of the public that believes they have a prior claim or
superior claim to the domain-name. This
will be a self-policing method.
E20. Describe any appeal process from denial of registration.
E20. Any
appeals from CCL’s decision would be under the aegis of and following the rules
laid down by ICANN in the appropriate document.
E21. Describe any procedure that permits third parties to seek cancellation of a TLD registration for failure to comply with restrictions.
E21. CCL
does not want to give third parties standing to challenge the issuance of a
domain-name. It may not be possible to
avoid third party claims or suits at law, but it is not considered at this time
to be an area that is either pressing by number or urgency or likely to become
so in the foreseeable future.
IV. CONTEXT OF THE
TLD WITHIN THE DNS
E22. This section is intended to allow you to describe the benefits of the TLD and the reasons why it would benefit the global Internet community or some segment of that community. Issues you might consider addressing include:
E22.
Comments not required.
E23. What will distinguish the TLD from existing or other proposed TLDs? How will this distinction be beneficial?
E23. CCL
believes the requested TLD, “dot shop” will offer additional and rational
combinations of names of a business entity and associate it with the kind or
class of business engaged in, i.e., “shop.”
The word “shop” is used throughout the world to designate a place or
point of commerce, It is and should be
maintained as a clear designation to shoppers where to go to buy products or
goods. Likewise, CCL believes that the
extension “dot svc” carries the same opportunity to assist would be consumers
of services that those internet websites so designated are in fact providers of
service and that can be expected from each registrant who is so
designated. Finally, CCL has the same
basic understanding and belief in the clarity and usefulness of the extension,
“dot mall.” Again, malls are normally collections of stores, usually retail,
that offer goods and services to shoppers.
By keeping the use of .mall in the hands of mall operators or mall
owners (both physical and virtual), this clarity of use can be preserved to the
benefit of internet users everywhere.
E24. What community and/or market will be served or targeted by this TLD? To what extent is that community or market already served by the DNS?
E24. CCL is
associated with a multi-billion dollar shopping center and shopping mall
conglomerate, which is in the process of “personalizing” many of its merchants
and storefronts. The theme is “personalized service,” such as is found in a
traditional shop. It is for this reason CCL feels great confidence in the
probable success of this domain-name extension. We have a ready-made customer base of twenty (20,000) thousand
stores and commercial establishments around the world. CCL’s customer has more than 154 million
square feet under roof. Upwards of 2
billion customers frequent these shopping malls in a year.
E25. Please describe in detail how your proposal would enable the DNS to meet presently unmet needs.
E25. It is
commonly agreed that many desirable names have been taken in the “.com”
extension. E-commerce writers often
comment this extension is “used up.” Dotcom.com further solidifies this
belief by informing its readers “approximately 98% of the words in Webster’s
English Dictionary have been registered.” Although not nearly so many
“.net” extensions are in use, it is also true that “.net” does not quickly
convey a commercial establishment. “.Net” is intended to designate internet
service providers. This same general criticism applies to “.org” as well, which
is meant for non-profit organizations.
CCL is enthused that
there is a market out there waiting for different extensions that will convey
to the casual Internet user as well as the advertising reader, ‘here is a place
I want to go – here is a place where I can go to get the things I want!’ By
allotting .shop, .svc and .mall, this can be accomplished and internet buyers
can be assured that their destination is a retail site by indicating a new TLD.
E26. How would the introduction of the TLD enhance the utility of the DNS for Internet users? For the community served by the TLD?
E26. The
DNS is the holder of the passkeys to the Internet. However many millions of people have access to the Internet, the
number will grow by leaps and bounds over the foreseeable future, certainly
doubling over the next few years. As
more and more forms of expression are
allowed by the DNS, the using public is
served better thereby. Every proposed
extension has some merits. There is
some community that could be better served by a particular extension, but it is
our belief that a very large community is out there waiting for “dot shop,”
“dot svc” and “dot mall.” With the
addition of new root severs which will divide usage accordingly and that will
relieve much of the load now on the “dot com” TLD.
E27. How would the proposed TLD enhance competition in domain-name registration services, including competition with existing TLD registries?
E27. The
more the merrier! Although there is some natural hesitancy to welcome onboard
your competitor, it was long agreed among American gasoline retailers that up
to 3 service stations could profitably locate at the same intersection. Experience dictated that not four, but three
could enhance each other’s business. A
fourth station would not generate more business but would instead divide the
existing business. For this reason it
was not uncommon before the advent of high volume self-serve stations to see
three gasoline service stations on a busy corner. By the same token, the more people who are served, the more
service they will require. Sure, there
are theoretical limits to this kind of geometric growth, but there are no signs
that limit has been approached. We are living at the beginning of a new era,
not at the close of an old, exhausted one. Every day something new or better or
cheaper is announced. This is the unbroken history of the electronic age since its
inception with the invention of the transistor at Bell Labs some 50 years
ago. Competition enhances the industry.
It brings more service and goods to the consumer. This brings more
consumers. The industry is able to live
the doctrine of economy of scale. And
we’re back where we started. CCL cannot conceive how the addition of this
requested domain name extension could do anything but add to the DNS ability to
serve the public. The above-mentioned new products will make life easier: an
arena always applauded by the buying public. If we convey a clear message as to
the intent of the new TLDs which will be accomplished by an extensive marketing
campaign worldwide, it will aid users in finding the items of service or goods
they require and are seeking. This will
at the same time add more to the monies already spent over the internet, making
E-commerce all the more the wave of the future. We believe customer service is
essential to success. CCL will strive to excel in this area. We want to be the registry of choice to the
registrars of the world.
V. VALUE OF PROPOSAL
AS A PROOF OF CONCEPT.
E28. Recent experience in the introduction of new TLDs is limited in some respects. The current program of establishing new TLDs is intended to allow evaluation of possible additions and enhancements to the DNS and possible methods of implementing them. Stated differently, the current program is intended to serve as a "proof of concept" for ways in which the DNS might evolve in the longer term. This section of the application is designed to gather information regarding what specific concept(s) could be evaluated if the proposed TLD is introduced, how you propose the evaluation should be done, and what information would be learned that might be instructive in the long-term management of the DNS. Well-considered and articulated responses to this section will be positively viewed in the selection process. Matters you should discuss in this section include:
E28.
Comments not required.
E29. What concepts are likely to be proved/disproved by evaluation of the introduction of this TLD in the manner you propose?
E29. CCL
expects to see the concept that underestimation is the bane of the industry.
Recall if you will the current tv ad where a youthful employee is taken aback
when his employer examines a laptop computer and says to him, “I’m glad I had
you order another thousand of these.”
The young employee snaps back, “But sir, I thought you said . . . . a
million!” So, CCL says, so what? We can sell’em. CCL thinks this extension already has a large market waiting to
be served. We look forward to being the
one to serve it.
E30. How do you propose that the results of the introduction should be evaluated? By what criteria should the success or lack of success of the TLD be evaluated?
E30.
Historical comparison is valid.
Look back to see how fast the .com, .net and .org extensions grew. Extrapolate those numbers into “adjusted”
numbers by analogy with the number of pc’s then and the number of pc’s
now. I believe this would give a fair
indicator whether the new extensions were being well received. If therefore, the “adjusted” purchases of
the new extensions was equal to the absolute number of “dot com” sales in the
same length of time, then it would be fair to say this was a wise and timely
move. If it fails, then CCL stands to suffer a real and significant loss. But, again I say, CCL is planning for round
two, even before we have had the
privilege of going round one.
E30.1. One
substantial proof of concept is the induction of new registries. If successful
it will provide competition to the TLD standard.
E31. In what way would the results of the evaluation assist in the long-range management of the DNS?
E31. A
valid conclusion can be drawn as to whether more extensions, offered on a short
time table, would be useful, or, conversely, should the new TLDs not take off like we at CCL think will
happen, then a slower introduction rate for new extensions and fewer extensions
would be indicated. However, with the new registries competing for registry
business it should drive the internet to have up scaled technology and more
efficient yet more courteous companies serving the publics basic needs.
E32. Are there any reasons other than evaluation of the introduction process that this particular TLD should be included in the initial introduction?
E32. Yes.
The public is ready for an expansion of merchandising sources. Here is an
extension that will lead the public in the right direction. Here is the
extension that is self-explanatory. As
the unintended usage of the “dot com”
has blurred the original distinctions the DNS visualized so now this
extensions “dot shop,” “dot svc,” and “dot mall” can restore a certain level of
purity to the internet.
By signing this
application through its representative, the Applicant attests that the
information contained in this Description of TLD Policies and all referenced
supporting documents are true and accurate to the best of Applicant’s
knowledge.
______________________________
Signature
Jeffrey S. Smith
______________________________
Name (please print)
President/CEO
______________________________
Title
Commercial Connect,
LLC
______________________________
Name of Applicant Entry
September 29, 2000
______________________________
Date